THE  LiBKAHr  OF  THE 

JUL  2  2  1924 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


ALLITERATION  AND  VARIATION  IN  OLD  GERMANIC 
N  *  ME-GIVING. 


Olcl  Germanic  names  are  prevailingly  composed  of  two  themes 
and  the  dominant  principle  in  name-giving  is  that  of  variation  of 
the  two  themes.  According  to  this  system  one  theme  of  the  basic 
name  of  father  or  other  relative  is  retained  and  combined  with 
some  other  theme  in  forming  the  new  name,  as  Eurich-Aiarich. 
By  the  side  of  this  principle  we  also  often  find  that  of  alliteration 
and  now  and  then  repetition.  In  the  latter  principle  the  full  name 
of  the  relative  is  retained;  this  method  belongs,  however,  to  a 
later  period,  and,  as  G.  Storm  has  shown,1  is  then  usually  seen  to 
be  connected  with  the  belief  in  the  transmigration  of  the  soul.  In 
Germanic  practice,  therefore,  repetition  of  the  full  name  would 
seem  to  be  later  evolved  (or  borrowed)  ;  the  original  principle  was 
either  that  of  variation  or  that  of  alliteration.  It  is  the  purpose 
of  this  paper  to  indicate  briefly  the  scope  of  these  two  principles 
in  early  Germanic  practice  with  a  view  to  ascertaining:  1)  what 
forms  the  principle  of  variation  assumes,  and  2)  the  relative  order 
of  the  two  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  of  the  names  in  the  Old 
Germanic  royal  lines,  and  3)  to  determine,  if  possible,  the  question 
of  the  origin  of  the  system  of  repetition  in  Germanic  and  West 
Scandinavian.  What  I  shall  offer  is  intended  to  be  merely  sug¬ 
gestive  not  exhaustive. 

At  the  outset  I  may  say  there  is  clearly  no  sharp  dividing  line 
between  any  two  of  these  principles.  The  reason  for  separating 
repetition  from  variation  as  a  system  of  name-giving  was,  of  course, 
the  fact  that  the  former  has  been  found  to  be  extensively  associated 
with  the  belief  in  the  transmigration  of  the  soul,  whereas  no  such 
belief  is  evidenced  it  would  seem  in  connection  with  either  varia¬ 
tion,  or  with  alliteration.  Storm  found  the  earliest  trace  of  repe¬ 
tition  when  Eurich,  among  the  Visigoths  of  Toulouse,  about  470 
named  his  son  Alarich  after  his  great  grandfather,  Alarich  I,  the 
conqueror  of  Rome,  who  died  in  410.  Only  slightly  later  the  new 
practice  is  in  evidence  among  the  Burgundians  in  Eastern  Gaul.2 

1  Arkiv  for  nordisk  Filologi,  1893,  pp.  199-222:  “Vore  Forsedres  Tro  paa 
Sjaelevandring  og  deres  Opkaldelsessystem.” 

2  Storm,  p.  206. 


7 


8 


MODEKN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


He  holds,  therefore,  that  the  new  belief  and  the  new  custom  in 
name-giving  were  borrowed  from  the  Gauls. 

Formally  there  may  seem  to  be  some  support  for  the  View  that 
the  custom  was  borrowed  in  that  whereas  the  older  system  was  a 
principle  of  similarity,  the  new  one  is  a  system  of  identity  re¬ 
quiring  the  use  of  the  identical  name  of  the  ancestor  that  is  to 
be  renamed.  But  the  change  from  variation  to  repetition  is  also 
one  from  a  lesser  to  a  greater  identity;  from  the  identity  of  one 
theme  to  a  principle  which  required  the  identity  of  both  themes. 
Between  the  two  there  are  intermediate  forms  in  actual  Germanic 
and  W.  Scandinavian  practice,  as  there  also  are  between  alliteration 
and  variation.3  Also  the  view  that  variation  was  the  primitive 
Germanic  system  necessarily  must  assume  that  variation  was  later 
displaced  by  the  (borrowed?)  system  of  alliteration;  and  further 
that  the  latter  was  later  again  replaced  by  variation,  for  this  seems 
to  be  the  dominant  principle  when  repetition  sets  in  in  the  West 
Germanic  countries  and  in  the  West  Scandinavian  North.  If 
alliteration  be  the  original  principle  the  evolution  of  the  later  prin¬ 
ciples  would  represent  a  progressive  tendency  to  greater  and  greater 
identity  in  the  name  as  the  mark  of  kinship. 

Of  course  alliteration  and  variation  may  originally  both  have 
existed  side  by  side  as  they  actually  do  in  the  earliest  groups  of 
related  family  names  ( i .  e.,  personal  name-theme  as  the  mark  of 
family  relationships).  We  can  then  readily  see  how  one  might 
gain  dominance  in  one  region,  the  other  in  another,  both,  how¬ 
ever,  being  everywhere  practised.  Thus  the  alliterative  principle 
of  the  E.  Scandinavian  royal  lines  around  the  year  500  4  would 
represent  the  complete  ascendency  of  this  principle  in  this  region 
at  this  time.5  However,  the  more  complicated  system  it  would 
seem  was  evolved  out  of  the  simpler  rather  than  Vice-versa. 

1  shall  now  turn  to  the  Germanic  genealogies.  In  the  earliest 
names  of  the  royal  lines  alliteration  is  frequent  and  alliterative 
variation  decidedly  preponderates  over  non-alliterative.  The  fam¬ 
ily  tree  of  Arminius  is  significant  and  typical.  The  date  is  the 

3  See  below. 

4  This  has  been  shown  by  A.  Olrik,  Danmarks  Heltedigtning,  i,  22-25, 
who  holds  that  variation  preceded  alliteration. 

5  The  evidence,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  is  almost  exclusively  East  Scandi¬ 


navian. 


OLD  GERMANIC  NAME-GIVING 


9 


first  century  A.  D.  I  reproduce  the  table  here  from  E.  Dahn’s 
Deutsche  Geschichte  i,  Part  1,  p.  366 : 

?  ? 


Aktumer  Segimer  Inguiomer  Segest  Segimer  Ukromer 


daughter  Flavus  Armin  Thusnelda  Segimund  Sesithankus  Ramis 


Italicus  Thumelikus 

Here  we  have  then  alliteration  in  S  once,6 7  in  Th  once  and' in 
vowel  once,  and  alliterative  variations  once  ( Segest — Segimund) . 
The  name  Ramis  must  be  left  out  of  account  as  uncertain.  Allit¬ 
eration  and  the  primary  theme  Seg-  completely  dominates  here.  It 
is  practically  a  certainty  that  the  father  of  the  second  Segimer  and 
his  brother  Segest  had  a  name  that  began  with  S.  The  father  of 
the  first  Segimer  had  a  name  that  began  with  S  or  a  vowel.  The 
second  theme  is  usually  - mer ;  the  first  is  either  Seg-  or  a  vocalic 
theme.  The  name  Arminius  alliterates  with .  the  uncle’s  name 
(and  the  grandfather’s?)  If  it  had  a  second  theme,  and  the  Ger¬ 
manic  names  of  this  family  all  have  two  themes,  that  then  was 
probably  -mer  <=  Erminomerd 

Among  the  earliest  West  Gothic  kings  we  find  alliteration  and 
variation  and  even  repetition:  as  Athanarich  —  Alarich  (395-410), 
and  Theoderich  I  (d.  451),  whose  four  sons  are  Thorismund , 
Theoderich,  Friedrich  and  Eurich.8  Here  the  oldest  son  is  named 
after  the  father  by  alliteration  and  the  fourth  son  similarly  after 
the  great-grandfather.  In  the  case  of  the  second  son  the  living 

6  A.  K.  Miillenhoff,  Germanica  Ant.  and  Kogel,  Geschichte  d.  d.  Lit.  i, 
51  ff.,  have  shown  that  the  name  of  iSegimer’s  son  is  iSesithankus  (not  Segi- 
thankus)  as  Wormstall  would  read. 

7  The  name  Arminius  may  now  be  regarded  as  definitely  shown  to  be 
not  Roman,  but  a  Romanized  Germanic  name.  See  especially  Gustav 
Kossinna,  “Arminius  Deutsch?”  in  Indo-Germanische  Forschungen,  ii,  pp. 
174-184.  Kossinna  assumes  Arminius  =  *Erminz,  a  short  name  for  Ermi- 
nomerus.  This  is  precisely  the  ‘  full-name  5  which  the  genealogy  requires 
( see  the  table ) . 

8  See  table  in  Dahn’s  Allgemeine  Geschichte,  ii,  2,  p.  590.  The  allitera¬ 
tions  are  prevailingly  vocalic  or  in  Th. 


10 


MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


fathers  name  is  repeated.  The  third  son’s  name  is  purely  varia¬ 
tional  ;  the  family  theme  -rich  is  also  repeated  in  the  fourth  son’s 
name.  The  Rugian  names  Flaccitheus ,  (ca.  460)  and  those  of 
his  sons  Feletheus  and  Ferderuch  show  alliteration  with  retention 
of  the  end  theme  in  the  first  case;  when  Feletheus  names  his  son 
Fridrich  we  seem  again  to  have  pure  alliteration.9  Among  the 
Amali  alliteration  seems  to  prevail :  The  earliest  names  alliterate 
in  vowel  or  H  (See  A.  G.,  p.  588),  then  follows  Athal  whose  son 
is  Achiulf.  The  latter’s  sons  are:  Ansila — Ediulf;  Wuldulf  and 
Ermanarich.  Wuldulf ’s  son  is  named  Y aleravans ,  whose  son  again 
is  Winithar  (further  Wandalar  and  Widemer,  Walem&r  and  Theo- 
demer,  sons  of  Wandalar).  In'  the  Vandalic  line  of  King  Godi- 
gisel,  whose  sons  are  Guntherich  and  Genserich  we  find  allitera¬ 
tions  of  the  fathers  named,  while  the  sons’  names  have  the  second 
theme  in  common.  Thereupon  the  alliterative  principle  changes 
here  to  variation ;  Genserich  names  his  son  Hunerich,  born  ca.  450, 
who  in  turn  names  his  son  Hilderich.  Genserich’s  son  Genzo  gives 
his  sons  variational  names:  Godagis  (great-grandfather  Godi- 
gisel) ;  Gunthamund  ( Guntherich ,  another  son  of  Godigisel)  ;  the 
third  son  is  named  by  variation  of  the  second  son’s  name  Thrasa- 
mund. 

In  the  Merovingian  line  a  special  form  of  variational  name¬ 
giving  is  practiced  (see  below)  but  the  primary  themes  are  pre¬ 
vailingly  themes  in  Ch.  The  names  are  :  Childerich — Chlodovech — 
Clilodomer — Childibert — Chlothachar —  Chlodechildis —  Chram — 
Charibert.  Among  the  Longobards  the  letters  are  A  ( Audvin ,  son 
Albvin)  (6th  cent.)  and  G.  ( Garibald sons  Gundovald  and  Grim- 
vald)  (7th  cent.).  Among  the  Burgundian  Gibichungs  alliteration 
is  the  chief  mark  of  kinship:  Gibiche — Godomar,  Gislachar,  Gun- 
dichar.  The  letter  is  G  further  in  the  later  descendants :  Gun- 
deuch — Gundobad — Godegisel.  With  Godomar ,  born  ca.  475, 
son  of  Gundobad ,  repetition  sets  in  10  which  henceforth  is  prac¬ 
ticed  by  the  side  of  alliterative  and  non-alliterative  variation. 
Among  the  earliest  kings  of  the  Gepidi,  the  principle  seems  to  be 
alliteration:  Trafstila ,  son  Thrasarich;  and  Elemund,  sons  Ostro- 
gotha  and  Arigusa(  ?),  while  Turismod,  died  ca.  549,  is  named 
after  Turisin  by  alliterative  variation. 

9  L.  c.  594. 

10  Storm,  l.  c.  206. 


OLD  GERMANIC  NAME-GIVING 


11 


Primitive  Germanic  name-giving  then,  the  above  brief  survey 
would  seem  to  indicate,  was  one  which  combined  alliteration  and 
alliterative  variation.  Alliteration  is  found  in  a  considerable  pro¬ 
portion  of  the  cases  as  the  sole  mark  of  the  family  line,  while  non- 
alliterative  variation  is  in  some  lines  not  practiced  at  all,  in  others 
only  sporadically  evidenced.  This  seems  to  point  to  alliteration  as 
the  original  Germanic  principle;  along  with  it  alliterative  varia¬ 
tion  was  probably  regularly  practiced  in  general  Germanic  times. 
Pure  variation,  however,  belongs  to  the  age  of  the  Germanic  migra¬ 
tions  and  after.  Alliteration  as  a  survival  obtains  clear  down  to 
the  Viking  Age  and  in  East  Scandinavian  gains  a  dominant  place 
again  in  the  sixth  century.11 

So  far  we  have  spoken  only  of  the  order  of  the  two  systems. 
Let  us  now  consider  briefly  the  evolution  of  variation. 

The  earliest  variational  names  were  then  alliterative,  it  may  be 
assumed,  i.  e.,  had  end- variation ;  this  stage  has  been  illustrated 
by  many  names  cited  above.  What  the  first  step  was  that  led  to 
the  new  method  is  indicated,  perhaps,  by  such  groups  as  Gunde- 
gisel — Gunderich — Genserich.  The  second  son’s  name,  Genserich, 
is  linked  to  the  father’s  name  by  something  more  than  the  initial 
G;  we  have  here  a  kind  of  inchoate  variation.  Cp.,  above,  Garibald 
and  sons  Gundovald  and  Grimvald ,  and  the  Burgundian  names 
Gundobad — -Gislahad.  Again  when  Kylan  named  his  son  Kdri  12 
the  result  is  somewhat  similar.  Such  identity  of  larger  portions 
of  the  name  may,  of  course,  sometimes  be  purely  accidental. 
Greater  is  the  identity  and  nearer  to  true  variation  in  such  case 
as  Arnegisclus — Anagastus,  Thrasian  father  and  son  of  the  fourth 
century.13  These  cases  are  intermediate  forms;  they  illustrate,  it 
seems  to  me,  the  way  in  which  an  accidental,  but  from  the  nature 
of  the  case  a  frequently  occurring,  identity  of  two  or  more  of  the 
first  sounds  could  finally  lead  to  a  feeling  for  such  greater  identity 
in  the  name  and  finally  to  a  fixed  practice  of  choosing  names  in 
which  the  first  stem  was  identical.  Variation  may  also  have 
arisen  in  the  second  theme,  in  a  manner  illustrated  by  the  names 

11  See  Berger  Nerman:  Studier  over  Svarges  hedna  Litteratur,  1913, 
pp.  13,  17  and  elsewhere. 

12  Landnamabok,  ii,  1. 

33  Schonfeld :  Worterbuch  der  altgermanischen  Personen-  und  Volker- 
namen,  1911. 


12 


MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


of  the  two  first  daughters  of  the  Frankish  king  Childerich  I,  died 
481,  Audefleda  and  Albofledis.  Here  we  have  the  function  of  the 
alliteration  enforced  by  the  identity  of  the  main  part  of  the  second 
theme.  This  type  would  seem  to  be  rather  characteristic  of  Early 
Germanic.  We  meet  with  it  in  several  of  the  Runic  inscriptions 
written  in  the  older  runes,  as  in  the  Istaby  inscription,  Blekinge, 
Sweden  seventh  century:,  Haf>uwulafR ,  son  of  HaeruwulafiR ; 
two  names  which  also  appear  on  the  Stentofta  stone,  Sweden 
seventh  century.  In  the  0.  H.  G.  Hildebrandslied  we  meet  with 
the  same  method  in  the  series:  Heribrant — Hildebrant — Hadu- 
brant.  Other  examples  are,  Vandalic:  Hunerich — Hilderich ; 
Longobardic:  Audvin — Albvin ;  Burgundian:  Gislachar — Gun- 
dachar  (cp.  also  Childerich — Chilperich) ;  Frankish:  Vigbert — 
Valtbert 14 ;  Swedish  (Geatic)  :  Hervarftr — Hjorvarftr,  etc.  This 
method  might  be  abundantly  illustrated  from  the  E.  Scand.  he¬ 
roic  saga.  It  is  the  same  method  that  is  in  evidence  when  in  the 
Landnamaboh,  Atli  jarl  enn  mjovi  named  his  three  sons  Hall- 
steinn,  Hersteinn  and  Holmsteinn.15  Or  again  when  Eyvindr 
sorkvir  named  his  two  sons  Hromundr  and  Hermundr ,  or  in  the 
variation  of  the  father’s  name  when  Hrossicell ,  son  of  porsteinn 
and  Lofthona,  named  his  son  Hallicell. 

The  tendencies  above  briefly  indicated  would  finally  lead  to  two 
types  of  variational  name-giving.  The  first  would  result  in  a  type 
which  retained  the  first  theme  but  varied  the  second,  as  Heorogar — 
Heoromund.  The  second  would  lead  to  one  in  which  the  second 
theme  is  retained  and  the  first  changed;  as  Genserich — Hunerich. 
With  the  development  of  this  latter  type  the  main  significance  of 
the  name  as  a  mark  of  relationship  must  have  shifted  from  the 
initial  sound  to  the  component  themes.  With  this  the  principle 
of  variation  is  fully  developed  as  a  dominant  principle.  It  is 
to  be  noted  here  that  as  names  with  end-variation  will  still  always 
have  alliteration :  the  new  principle  does  not  do  away  with  the  old, 
but  the  old  principle  lives  on  by  the  side  of  the  new.  The  two 
principles  meet  in  this  new  type;  alliteration  and  variation  both 
operate.  Also  the  tendency  of  the  time  toward  greater  identity 
in  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  family  would  undoubtedly  give 

14  Valtbert  named  his  son  Vigbert,  where  the  principle  of  repetition 
appears. 

15  LcmdnamaboJc,  I,  B.  Reykjavik  ed.,  1891,  p.  30. 


OLD  GERMANIC  NAME-GIVING 


13 


a  leading  place  to  names  of  this  type  in  which  the  first  part  is 
preserved  and  the  snffixal  theme  changed ;  see  below  on  the  govern¬ 
ing  principles.  Both  in  the  earlier  period  therefore  and  later  this 
type  would  probably  dominate.  This  is  also  in  actual  practice  the 
case,  in  the  names  of  the  Old  Germanic  kings.  In  illustration  of 
the  older  practice  I  shall  cite  merely  the  following  examples : 
Gundegisel — Gunderich;  Gelarich — Gelimer ;  Theodemer — Theo¬ 
derich,  Theodemund;  Theoderich — Theodegoto ;  Amalfreda — Am- 
alaberga ;  Theodehad — Theodegisl,  Theodenantis;  Albvin — Alb- 
svinda;  Gundovald — Gundobert;  Chlodvch — Chlodomer ,  etc.,  etc. 
The  genealogies  show  this  practice  to  be  dominant  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  migration  period. 

Non-alliterative  or  front- variation  appears  however  now  and 
then  and  especially  later  seems  to  be  almost  as  general  as  end- 
variation.  The  material  contained  in  Storm,  l.  c.,  however,  has  only 
,  these:  Vandalic,  Genserich — Ilunericli,  Theoderich ;  Longobardic, 
Aribert — Godobert ;  Frankish,  Merovech — Chlodovech.  Already  this 
reveals  the  relative  scarcity  of  this  type.  In  the  tables  in  Dahn’s  A.  G. 
we  find  also  the  following:  Childei'ich — Theuderich ;  Childibert — 
Sigibert — Dogobert ;  Achiulf — Ediulf,  Wuldulf;  Hunimund — 
Thorismund — Berismund;  Widerich — Eutharich ;  Kunimund — 
Rosimunda;  Theoderich — Enrich — Alarich ,  and  a  few  more,  but  in 
proportion  to  those  with  end-variation  the  number  is  small.  This 
was  therefore  not  a  favored  method;  when  the  father  gave  a  name 
to  the  son  or  daughter  the  primary  theme  was  the  one  to  be  chosen. 

There  seem  to  have  been  certain  other  principles  in  operation. 
E.  g.,  where  there  are  several  children  front-variation  of  the  father's 
name  or  perhaps  of  the •  first  son's  name  is  resorted  to.  Thus  the 
second  theme  of  the  first  son’s  name  will  reappear  in  later  children’s 
names.  So  when  Gundegisel  names  his  sons  Gunderich  and  Gen¬ 
serich  the  latter  name  in  addition  to  alliteration  repeats  the  second 
theme  of  the  first  son’s  name.  Genso  names  his  two  first  sons 
Gelarich  and  Gunthamund;  the  second  theme  of  the  latter  is  re¬ 
peated  in  the  third  son’s  name  Thrasamund.  Cp.  further  Theo¬ 
derich — Theodegoto  and  Astragoto;  Garibald,  and  sons,  Gundovald 
and  Grimvald;  Gundovald,  sons,  Gundebert  and  Aribert}1  This 
principle  is  clearly  practised  among  the  Vandals,  the  East  Goths, 
the  Longobards  and  the  Burgundians.  It  is  not  always  clear  what 


16  Unusual  is  it  when  Aribert  names  his  sons  Bert&ri  and  Godi&er*. 


14 


MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


principles  have  been  decisive  in  the  choice  of  the  type  appearing. 
There  are  departures  from  the  principle  that  the  son  is  named  by 
end- variation  but  they  are  exceptional,  and  due  perhaps  to  the  form 
of  the  names.  E.  g.,  when  Gundegisel  names  his  two  sons  Gunde- 
rich  and  Genserich  the  second  son  receives  a  name  which  does  not 
contain  either  of  the  two  themes  of  the  paternal  name.  It  is  in 
the  final  theme  -rich  that  the  kinship  is  given  expression;  this 
would  seem  to  be  the  reason  why  he  repeats  this  theme  in  his  two 
first  sons  Hunerich  and  Theoderich  ;  then  the  third  son  is  named 
by  a  “  Kurzname  ”  based  on  his  own  name.  Again  exactly  in  the 
same  way  when  Gundovald  names  his  sons  Gundobert  and  Aribert, 
Aribert  preserves  the  theme  -bert  in  his  sons’  names  Bertari  and 
Godibe7't.  Likewise  Bertari  gives  his  two  sons  the  names  Kunin- 
bert  and  Luitpert. 

While  there  are  other  principles  in  operation  in  the  Merovingian 
lists,  as  repetition  of  the  full  name .  in  alternate  generations,  the- 
principle  of  variation  .is  also  observed.  Chlodvch’s  sons  are  named 
Theoderich,  Chlodomer,  Chlothar  and  Childerich  ;  here  the  name  of 
the  second  son  follows  the  principle  that  the .  primary  theme  of  the 
fathers  name  is  retained  in  the  same  position  in  the  son’s  name. 
Similarly,  when  Gunthchram  named  his  son  Gundobad.  This  is 
also  done  by  Theuderich  when  he  named  his  son  Theudibert  and 
by  the  latter  who  named  his  son  Tlieudobald.  Later  the  method 
is  obscured  by  the  entrance  of  the  principle  of  repetition.  But 
among  the  Merovingians  a  new  principle  now  sets  in,17  namely 
that  of  repeating  the  primary  theme  in  alternate  generations. 
Thus  Childerich’s  grandson  is  named  Childibert  (d.  558)  and  a 
grandson  of  Chlotachar  I  is  named  Chlotobert.  A  grandson  of 
Chlotachar  II,  584-628,  is  named  Chlodovech  638-656 ;  the  latter 
may  have  been  named  after  Chlodovech  I  (d.  511).  The  second 
theme  is  also  repeated  in  alternate  generations ;  an  example  of  this 
we  already  have  in  the  name  of  Chlodovech  I,  born  466,  and  who  is 
thus  named  after  Merovech,  and  again  in  Chlodvech’s  son  named 
Theuderich  after  the  grandfather  Childerich  I.  Finally  this  prin¬ 
ciple  crosses  that  of  the  retention  of  the  new  primary  theme  of 
the  father’s  name  in  the  son’s  name  when,  e.  g.,  Dagobert  I  named 
his  first  son  Sigibert  (III,  638-656).  An  unusual  form  appears 
in  the  name  Charibert,  second  son  of  Chlothachar  I,  d.  561.  When 


17  First  half  of  the  sixth  century. 


OLD  GERMANIC  NAME-GIVING 


15 


Charibert  in  turn  named  his  second  daughter  Berth  efiedis  he  ob¬ 
served  the  same  method.  In  the  third  daughter’s  name,  Chrodi- 
eldis,  ancestral  feminine  themes  were  combined.  Finally  the  repe¬ 
tition  of  the  first  theme  in  alternate  generations,  and  the  repe¬ 
tition  of  the  second  theme  in  the  same  alternate  generations  led  to 
the  repetition  of  the  identical  name  in  alternate  generations, — the 
grandson  is  given  the  name  of  the  grandfather.  Examples  are: 
Chlothachar — Gunthchram — Chlothachar  (d.  573)  ;  Chlothachar — 
Chilperich — Chlothachar  (d.  584)  ;  Dagobert  I — Sigibert  III — 
Dagobert  II  (d.  678),  etc. 

Here  then  among  the  Merovingians  about  550  to  650  all  types 
of  variations  are  employed  with  the  old  alliterative  family  themes 
and  in  combination  with  new  themes,  and  according  to  fixed  prin¬ 
ciples  leading  at  last  to  repetition.  The  principle  of  repetition 
finally  leads  to  the  selection  of  certain  favored  names :  Dagobert, 
Sigibert  and  the  old  names  Chlodovech,  Chlothachar,  Chilperich 
and  Theoderich. 

Perhaps  the  above  will  have  indicated:  1,  how  variation  arose 
and,  2,  how  variation  as  practiced  among  the  continental  West 
Germanic  tribes  and  the  East  Germanic  peoples  led  at  last  to 
repetition. 

It  would  be  tempting  here  to  undertake  an  examination  of  Old 
English  practice  as  evidenced  in  the  royal  genealogies.  However, 
here  we  are  face  to  face  with  a  difficult  and  very  complicated 
problem.  For  we  have  to  do  in  this  case  with  a  people  that  has 
severed  its  connection  with  the  old  home,  the  cradle  of  its  tradi¬ 
tions,  and  has  established  a  new  home,  and  has  furthermore  in 
that  new  home  come  in  prolonged  contact  with  a  foreign  civiliza¬ 
tion.  The  removal  from  the  native  soil  is  not,  however,  the  signi¬ 
ficant  fact;  for  an  emigrating  people  takes  with  it  its  household 
gods  and  its  beliefs  wherever  it  goes;  old  customs  and  beliefs  may 
survive  longer  even  in  a  new  home  where  the  process  of  change 
is  checked  for  a  time  as  the  tradition  is  removed  from  the  soil 
that  gave  it  growth.  But  the  contact  with  a  different  civilization, 
if  equal  or  higher,  is  the  all-important  fact.  Where  such  contact 
takes  place  the  seeds  of  change  have  already  been  sown.  Now  in 
England  Germanic  traditions  came  in  close,  mainly  hostile,  contact 
with  Celtic  civilization,  a  civilization  which  itself  for  400  years 
had  been  in  contact  with  Roman  civilization.  But  in  that  period 


16 


MODEKN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


Celtic  culture  had  not  been  influenced  very  much,  it  would  seem, 
by  the  Komans.  What  follows  then  with  the  coming  of  Angles, 
Saxons  and  Jutes  upon  the  invitation  of  Vortigern  in  449  is  a 
long  struggle  between  native  British  and  a  transplanted  Anglo- 
Saxon  civilization.  That  there  was  cultural  exchange  in  ways  not 
yet  investigated  at  all  we  may  be  sure :  The  solution  of  all  such 
problems  we  shall  have  to  leave  to  the  Anglicist-Celticist.  These 
questions  will  be  settled  only  by  those  scholars  who  have  the  view¬ 
point  of  the  specialist  in  Old  English  and  also  of  the  specialist  in 
Old  Irish  language  and  tradition.  So  I  shall  leave  this  phase  of 
the  problem  with  the  suggestion  that  names  and  name-giving  seem 
to  suggest  that  in  Northumberland  and  East  Anglia  English  tra¬ 
ditions  are  found  in  their  purest  form ;  that  in  Mercia  and  Wessex 
the  conditions  are  more  mixed.  But  what  belongs  to  both  sides 
remains  then  the  problem.  So  far  Anglicists  seem  to  have  under¬ 
rated  the  Celtic  element  on  the  one  hand,  while  Celticists  are 
evidently  overestimating  the  Celtic  loan. 

We  shall  now  return  to  the  question  of  the  relation  of  this  new 
type  of  name-giving  by  repetition  to  the  belief  in  the  transmigra¬ 
tion  of  the  soul.  I  cannot  take  the  time  to  discuss  this  question  in 
detail  here,  but  I  suggest  that  the  belief  in  soul-transmigration 
does  not  give  rise  to  the  practice  of  repetition  in  name-giving. 
The  latter  system  was  slowly  evolved  and  has  in  its  origin  no  more 
religious  connection  than  the  other  two  methods.  On  the  other 
hand  the  belief  must  have  existed  early  and  attached  itself  to  name¬ 
giving  long  before  repetition  set  in.  The  repetition  of  a  grand¬ 
parent’s  name  grew  into  repetition  of  the  name  of  the  departed 
ancestor.  What  took  place  then  was  a  double  change :  First,  the 
grandparent’s  name  was  repeated;  sometimes  the  grandparent  had 
died  before  the  birth  of  the  child  to  be  named;  here  repetition  was 
restoring  to  life  the  name  of  the  ancestor.  Again  though  the 
grandparent  were  living  at  the  time  of  naming  the  child,  the 
grandparent  usually  died  before  the  namesake  grandchild.  Here 
there  was  equally  room  for  associating  the  name  in  some  mysterious 
way  vdth  the  departed.  The  other  change  was  in  the  form  of 
the  belief  which  regarded  the  soul  as  present  in  the  name.  In 
this  connection  I  shall  cite  a  significant  bit  of  evidence  from  Isaac 
Tylor’s  Primitive  Culture,  n,  p.  14.  He  is  discussing  the  doctrine 
of  migration  of  souls  in  later  Jewish  philosophy :  “  The  soul  of 
Adam  passed  into  David,  and  shall  pass  into  the  Messiah,  for  are 


SHAKESPEARE’S  LAST  SONNETS 


17 


not  these  initials  in  the  very  name  of  Ad(a)m,  and  does  not  Eze¬ 
kiel  say  that  ‘  my  servant  David  shall  be  their  prince  forever/  ” 
Here  then  the  migration  of  the  soul  into  the  new  body  is  assured 
by  the  repetition  of  any  letter  of  the  name  as  the  initial  of  the  new 
name.  And  it  would  be  a  natural  step  for  the  belief  to  attach  itself 
to  the  initial  of  the  basic  name  which  then  is  to  be  used  as  the 
initial  in  the  new  name. 

Among  the  Old  Germanic  peoples  too,  then,  the  soul  may  have 
been  thought  present  in  the  initial  after  death  and  transferable 
with  it ;  alliterative  name-giving  by  repetition  of  the  initial  of  the 
departed  no  doubt  was  regarded  as  insuring  the  transmigration  of 
the  soul  of  the  departed  into  the  new  body.  But  among  our  Ger¬ 
manic  ancestors  the  theme  had  come  to  be  the  name-unit  in  the 
main;  in  variational  name-giving  the  whole  theme  represented 
the  family  character  and  the  soul.  Now  the  tendency  to  greater 
and  greater  identity  in  the  name  as  the  mark  of  relationship  was 
there;  but  the  belief  also  aided  this  tendency.  What  took  place 
in  the  change  from  variation  to  repetition  was  a  development  in 
the  belief  according  to  which  the  whole  name  came  to  be  regarded 
as  the  symbol  of  the  soul  and  its  vehicle  after  the  death  of  the 
body.  Finally  the  belief  associates  itself  exclusively  with  the  repe¬ 
tition  of  the  whole  name  of  the  ancestor  whose  soul  and  person¬ 
ality  it  is  desired  shall  continue  a  new  existence  in  the  present 
descendant. 

George  T.  Flom. 

University  of  Illinois. 


SHAKESPEARE’S  LAST  SONNETS 

One  who  ventures  an  additional  word  on  the  Sonnets  of  Shake¬ 
speare  after  everything  has  apparently  been  said  thrice  over  might 
do  well  to  introduce  himself  thus :“Iama  Southamptonite,  dating 
the  Sonnets  with  'Sarrazin  from  1592  to  1596,  accepting  with  Dow- 
den  the  quarto  order  of  the  first  125  as  chronological,  with  Massey 
identifying  the  Dark  Lady  as  Elizabeth  Vernon,  and  with  Wynd- 
ham  proclaiming  the  Rival  Poet  to  be  Drayton.”  Or:  “  I  am  a 
Pembrokist,  dating  the  Sonnets  with  Mackail  from  1598  to  1603, 
with  Tyler  identifying  the  Dark  Lady  as  Mary  Fitton,  and  holding 
with  Minto  that  the  Rival  Poet  is  Chapman.”  Or :  “I  agree  with 
2 


18 


MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


Sir  Sidney  Lee  that  the  Sonnets  are  literary  exercises  which  do  not 
record  the  poet’s  own  experience;  I  believe  with  Alden  that  it  is 
impertinent  to  try  to  identify  the  Dark  Lady;  I  think  with  Fleay 
that  W.  H.  is  not  the  youth  to  whom  the  First  Series  is  addressed 
at  all  but  Thorpe’s  “  only  procurer  ”  of  them ;  I  am  confident,  with 
Walsh,  that  the  order  is  wholly  haphazard  and  must  be  completely 
readjusted  to  make  the  Sonnets  intelligible;  I  haven’t  the  faintest 
idea  who  the  Rival  Poet  could  have  been,  for  I  hold,  with  Rolfe, 
that  many  of  the  First  Series  may  have  been  addressed  to  a  woman. 
Or  finally :  “  I  am  a  free  lance  among  the  Sonnets’  critics  with  a 
special  set  of  conjectures  all  my  own ;  though  I  do  agree  with  But¬ 
ler  that  W.  H.  is  William  Hughes,  with  Acheson  that  the  Dark 
Lady  is  Mistress  Davanant,  and  with  Montmorency  that  the  Rival 
Poet  is  Spenser;  I  realize,  with  Beeching,  that  Sonnet  107  must 
refer  to  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  though  the  majority,  as  McClumpha 
shows,  are  contemporary  with  Romeo  and  Juliet  and  Love’s  Labour’s 
Lost.”  Having  thus,  or  by  some  similar  formula,  presented  his 
credentials,  the  new  champion  may  enter  the  lists  and  proceed  to 
break  his  spear  against  the  Veiled  Knight  who  guards  the  Mystery 
of  the  Sonnets. 

My  own  choice  among  these  and  other  possibilities,  together  with 
my  particular  reasons  for  dating  the  majority  of  the  Sonnets  from 
1§95  to  1598,  I  have  given  in  the  Publications  of  the  M.  L.  A.  for 
September,  1915,  and  I  there  maintained  that  much  that  we  find 
in  the  Sonnets  is  mirrored  in  the  plays.  There  is,  however,  one 
problem  in  this  connection  on  which  I  then  offered  no  comment 
but  on  which  I  now  have  a  word  to  say.  To  introduce  this  prob¬ 
lem  I  venture  to  quote  a  few  sentences  from  Professor  A.  C.  Brad¬ 
ley’s  lecture  on  “  Shakespeare  the  Man.”  1 

“ .  .  .  But  when  he  is  dealing  with  lechery  and  corruption,  the 
undercurrent  of  disgust  seem§  to  become  audible.  Is  it  not  true 
that  in  the  plays  from  Hamlet  to  Timon  that  subject,  in  one  shape 
or  another,  is  continually  before  us;  that  the  intensity  of  loathing 
in  Hamlet’s  language  about  his  mother’s  lust  is  unexampled  in 
Shakespeare;  that  the  treatment  of  the  subject  in  Measure  for 
Measure,  though  occasionally  purely  humorous,  is  on  the  whole 
quite  unlike  the  treatment  in  Henry  IV;  .  .  .  that  this  same  tone 
is  as  plainly  heard  in  the  unquestioned  parts  of  Timon;  and  that 
.  .  .  there  is  no  apparent  reason  why  Lear  in  his  exalted  madness 

1  Oxford  Lectures  on  Poetry,  pp.  325,  326,  n. 

THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

!,l!  2  2  1924 


UN  VF#«.TV  of  ILLINOIS 


GERMAN  THAT  “  STICKS  ” 

is  the  German  taught  and  learned  by  constant  drill  and 
frequent  repetition.  The  beginning  of  the  school  year 
usually  finds  your  German  student  woefully  mixed  in 
the  most  simple  matters  of  German  grammar.  Neither 
teacher  nor  pupil  is  to  be  blamed.  The  more  times 
your  student  sees  a  thing  the  less  apt  is  he  to  forget  it. 

ALLEN  4ND  PHILLIPSON’S 

First  C  .aan  Grammar 

$1.00 

reiterates  without  being  tiresome,  drills  without  sacri¬ 
fice  of  interest,  and  furnishes  a  wealth  of  reading 
material  without  making  the  volume  unduly  long.  The 
latter  shows  every  practical  angle  of  usage  to  illustrate 
the  subject. 

GINN  AND  COMPANY 

70  FIFTH  AVENUE  NEW  YORK  CITY 


FOR  COMPARATIVE  LITERATURE  COURSES 


CHIEF  CONTEMPORARY  DRAMATISTS  $ 3.00 


Edited  by  Thomas  H.  Dickinson. 


Twenty  plays  from  recent  drama. 

Wilde 

Barker 

Fitch 

Hauptmann 

Maeterlinck 

Pinero 

Yeats 

Moody 

Sudermann 

Lady  Gregory 

Synge 

Tchekhov 

Thomas 

Bjornson 

Strindberg 

Jones 

Brieux 

MacKaye 

Hervieu 

Galsworthy 

CHIEF  EUROPEAN  DRAMATISTS 

$3.00 

Edited  by  Brander  Matthews. 

One  typical  play  from  each  of  the  following  dramatists. 

Aristophanes 

Plautus 

Corneille 

Victor  Hugo 

Goethe 

ALschylus 

Terence 

Moli^re 

Augier  and  Sandeau  Schiller 

Sophocles 

Goldoni 

Racine 

Lope  de  Vega 

Holberg 

Euripides 

Calderon 

Lessing 

Beaumarchais 

Ibsen 

Dumas  fils 

CHIEF  BRITISH  POETS  OF  THE  14TH  AND  15TH  CENTURIES  $2.75 
Edited  by  W.  A.  Neilson  and  K.  G.  T.  Webster. 

A  comprehensive  collection  of  the  best  narrative,  satirical  and  lyric 
poems  of  the  later  middle  ages. 

CHIEF  MIDDLE  ENGLISH  POETS  $ 2.25 

Translated  and  edited  by  Jessie  L.  Weston. 

Representative  middle  English  poetry,  rendered  in  modern  English. 

Above  prices  cure  postpaid 


HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY.  Boston.  NewYork.  Chicago. 


fleatfTg  Jflotiern  Hangtiage  Series 

Halevy:  l’Abbe  Constantin  (New  edition)  45  cents 

Completely  reset,  with  various  additions  and  changes  in  the  notes  and 
vocabulary.  The  new  edition  of  this  popular  story  is  furnished  with  direct- 
method  exercises  and  has  a  number  of  attractive  illustrations. 

Spiers:  A  Notebook  of  Modern  Languages  35  cents 

Arranged  by  Mr.  I.  H.  B.  Spiers  of  the  William  Penn  Charter  School. 
The  object  of  the  book  is  to  encourage  and  facilitate  the  systematic  taking 
of  notes  in  the  various  modern  languages. 

SOME  BOOKS  IN  PRESS 

Anatole  France:  le  Crime  de  Sylvestre  Bonnard 

An  attractive  edition  of  this  charming  story,  with  an  introduction,  notes 
and  vocabulary  by  Professor  T.  L  Borgerhoff  of  Western  Reserve  University. 

Armand:  Grammaire  Eleme, 

An  introductory  direct-L  ,nch  Grammar  for  t.<  >  term,  by 

Emma  C.  Armand  of  the  A  igh  School,  New  York  Cioy. 

Herzog:  Die  Burgkinder 

A  powerful  narrative  by  one  of  the  foremost  contemporary  German 
writers.  Edited  with  notes  and  vocabulary  by  Professor  Ottilie  G.  Boetzkes 
of  the  University  of  Washington. 

Hills  and  Ford:  A  First  Spanish  Course 

This  new  work  by  the  authors  of  the  popular  Hills  and  Ford  Spanish 
Grammar  contains  the  essentials  of  grammar,  with  an  abundance  of  easy, 
practical  exercises  based  on  homely  topics  and  arranged  in  connected 
discourse. 


D.  C.  HEATH  &  CO.,  Publishers 

BOSTON  NEW  YORK  CHICAGO  LONDON 


Two  New  Grammars 


FUNDAMENTALS  OF 
FRENCH 

By  Fbances  R.  Angus,  University  High 
School,  Chicago.  280  pp.  12mo.  $1.15. 

The  author  characterizes  this  text  book  for 
beginners  in  French  as  “a  combination  of  the 
Direct  and  Grammatical  Methods.”  It  repre¬ 
sents  the  method  which  a  long  and  successful 
teaching  experience  has  shown  to  be  the  best 
for  enabling  the  young  beginner  readily  and 
correctly  to  speak,  understand  and  read  the 
French  language. 

It  allies  itself  with  the  conversational  meth¬ 
od  by  its  use  of  French  in  the  classroom,  and 
the  development  of  each  subject  in  the  series 
of  lessons  is  also  largely  conversational,  but 
the  grammatical  method  is  kept  in  view  by 
the  systematic  introduction  of  one  grammatical 
peculiarity  after  another,  in  logical  order. 
Each  is  explained  on  first  presentation,  varied 
and  developed  in  the  next  ensuing  lessons, 
and  reintroduced  in  later  lessons  until  quite 
familiar  to  the  students. 


DEUTSCHER  LEHRGANG. 
ERSTES  JAHR. 

By  Eduard  Pbokosch,  University  of 
Texas.  242  pp.  I2mo.  $1.00. 

This  is  the  first  volume  in  a  series  by  the 
author  and  Mr.  Purin  of  the  Milwaukee  Normal 
School.  It  is  entirely  distinct  from  Professor 
Prokosch’s  Introduction  to  German  and  German 
for  Beginners ,  and  while  it  is  on  the  same 
general  plan  of  basing  the  work  cn  reading 
texts  given  in  the  book,  it  follows  more  closely 
the  direct  method. 

Several  grammatical  points  which  are  natur¬ 
ally  second-year  work  are  omitted  from  this 
book  entirely  or  treated  very  briefly.  As  the 
first  of  the  series,  this  volume  aims  to  pro¬ 
vide  only  for  the  essentials  which  belong  to 
first-year  work. 


HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

84  West  33d  Street  6  bark  StteSt ;  623  So.  Wabash  Are. 
NEW  YORK  BOSTON  “  CHICAGO 


